Guardian university rankings out yesterday

[TheJollyCoralEagle]

The Guardian University rankings were published yesterday (The Daily Mail rankings are out today as well, but I don't really want to reference that otherwise this might take a political detour which isn't relevant to the conversation)
The usual subjects are at the top. Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, Durham etc. What is interesting is further down. Established, high ranking globally, Russell Group unis like Newcastle and Nottingham at 62nd and 63rd, but Chichester at 26th and Bolton at 32nd
And then the variation between the league tables. Bolton for example is 108th in the CUG and Chichester at 79th.
I know the Guardian uses different metrics to CUG (and the others) but the rankings must have some relevance to each other?
Some good advice is to go look at the subject league tables but even there, that isn't always useful. My son wants to do Quantity Surveying. Speaking to Quantity Surveyors in practice they generally regard Oxford Brookes as one of the top universities for Quantity Surveying yet Oxford Brookes comes in at 12th on the CUG Quantity Surveying rankings. And for Magic Circle law recruitment or investment banking for example, apparently the vast majority of their recruits come from a handful of targeted top universities, but some other universities feature highly in these relevant subject rankings.
I know rankings aren't important for everyone. Some people just want to go to a university that they like for the experience, the city, their friends are going there, it's close to home etc, but for students concerned about getting a job and having to choose between more than 100 universities it's a bit of a minefield!
I know recruiters aren't supposed to look at which university you went to, so maybe rankings aren't such a big factor in the job market any more, but let's not kid ourselves if rankings/reputation/kudos weren't important most students would be going to Leeds Beckett, Northumbria, LJU or Nottingham Trent to have a great social life!

https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2024/sep/07/the-guardian-university-guide-2025-the-rankings?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This just means he's a decent human. Those things seek out ruthlessness/sociopathy and reward it with a job. Profit above all else.
Tell him to look into other sectors

Very often used by the public sector.

Yes human interviewers will have biases, but AI and prewritten tests will have the biases of the people who designed them.

How can we be sure, say, that the organisations Stonewall advises is not throwing in some of their lobbying priorities. Or that there is a uniformity of political belief in not becoming the norm amongst new recruits leading to bubbles out of touch with wider public opinion.

It is always hard to know what factors will help. It is a minefield. At least we don't have people having to do special masonic handshakes to get most jobs (my grandfather, a mason, died of a heart attack at a masonic lodge during a dinner there)....

I think things generally work okay. I went to a reunion at a law firm where I used to work and they now have 100 people in our department of which 50% of the partners are now female. It was already in the 1980s a very inclusive department with all kinds of different people including a female trainee with children in her 40s, I (married with a baby when I was only 23) etc.

I believe we have in the UK currently more graduates than ever, plus record immigration ever and therefore more people after the jobs with higher pay. Although we are not in a massive recession as when I graduated or the 90s crash or 2008 credit crunch which were all hard times to graduate, the sheer number of people wanting certain jobs and the need to filter that and the being spoilt for choice by vast numbers of people all of whom might have the basic very high grades makes it very hard to get some jobs.

The new law exams (SQE) are proving quite interesting as they are probably fairly fair, centrally set and future trainees may lose their future jobs if they don't pass first time at some firms. I want to know if those who are failing are those who perhaps should not have had the offers in the first place as their grades were never good enough in other exams or if it is more random than that. it is the kind of definitely not politically correct data perhaps no one will ever produce.

I saw a sociologist at Oxford was suggesting no more than 10% of places should be given to private school pupils (ignoring the selective nature of most private schools and the higher proportion of private sixth formers). It is interesting how these suggestions of social engineering always protect their own… why stop there? Why not insist that all public sectors (and private sectors) do not employ more than 1% Oxbridge graduates?

I saw a sociologist at Oxford...

I think you may mean sociologists from LSE @LongtailedTitmouse

Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman, professors of sociology at the London School of Economics. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Born-Rule-Making-Remaking-British/dp/0674257715 I'll admit that I've not yet rushed to click buy now and indulge in the 328 pages.

Ah, possibly.

why stop there? Why not insist that all public sectors (and private sectors) do not employ more than 1% Oxbridge graduates?

Er, because that'd be both idiotic and unfair?

The new law exams (SQE) are proving quite interesting as they are probably fairly fair, centrally set and future trainees may lose their future jobs if they don't pass first time at some firms. I want to know if those who are failing are those who perhaps should not have had the offers in the first place as their grades were never good enough in other exams or if it is more random than that. it is the kind of definitely not politically correct data perhaps no one will ever produce.

I can assure you that every combination and permutation of demographics & background is being analysed to the nth degree.

The latest PAMCo results show the Guardian also retains its position as the UK’s most trusted news publisher at an overall brand level - encompassing both the Guardian and Observer Online

Clearly. Yet that is what has happened to F1 junior doctors.

And yet their circulation is only a fraction of that of the Mail and falling.

I’m Legal in local government and we don’t recruit blind.
SQE I’d like to see stats for each provider, rumour is big discrepancies between institutions.

@LongtailedTitmouse i thought F1 doctors were done on a university-blind random allocation now? The random bit being particularly idiotic and unfair

Don't you just love it when a Mail reader takes cheap shots (on a thread about University rankings of all places), but just exposes themselves completely.
Hardly anyone reads newspapers any more, it's all online and lo and behold the Guardian's numbers are increasing and similar in size to to the Mail.

"Of the top ten biggest sites in July 2024, six sites saw month-on-month growth. Sky News and The Guardian (22 million) were both up 10% month-on-month.
Among news publishers, websites and apps, the BBC website is the most popular at 59%, followed by Sky, the Guardian and the Daily Mail at approximately 20%"

Of blind recruitment equalises acceptance rates by institution why is there still an obsession with Oxbridge and the RG? I still believe high status university is the best means of high status employment.

It's as if the term 'high flyer' should be abandoned until the early years of employment S it is non inclusive to suggest that someone who has a raft of great A levels and went to Oxbridge has a significantly greater chance of employment aucess. Maybe that is just the way it is and there are good arguments for it.

Why do you think I read the Mail? I actually used to be an avid Guardian reader until they replaced news with activism.

Of blind recruitment equalises acceptance rates by institution why is there still an obsession with Oxbridge and the RG? I still believe high status university is the best means of high status employment.

Er, for the quality education they provide?

And then, apart from a good university education being an excellent thing as an end in itself, for many high fliers undergrad is the next step to postgrad - especially in sciences. Recruitment can't be blind when you're at the level where it matters what you did your research on and with whom, or which specific Masters you've done.

Many of the metrics need interrogated a bit further to see what they actually mean.

Take two of the universities in my city. One elite, one modern. The elite one has a staff-student ratio that is much ‘better’ as measured by the Graun, but lots of those staff will be on research only contracts, or be Profs that are barely in contact with undergrads. Students on the most popular courses will be in lectures of 300+ students. Some of them won’t even be in the same room as the lecturer because there are so many!

Meanwhile at the modern university, almost all the staff will be involved in the students’ teaching. There will probably be no more than 60 students in any lecture, so it’s much more likely to be interactive.

‘Old’ and ‘new’ universities had different purposes that they still reflect 30 years after polytechnics became universities.

The old universities were predominantly research institutions, they carried out research that lead to discoveries owned by the UK or placed within the public domain. The research was the main output. Students were taught as a by-product of that research. Most of the subjects were ‘pure’ academic subjects. Even today the most important output for academics in these institutions are research grants gained and research output, though the universities try to monetise any potentially commercial research in spin-off companies.

New universities/polytechnics were about training in skills and vocations. Their main purpose was teaching and meeting the local employment market demands. This is still reflected in the range of courses offered eg nursing/allied health professions and management type courses.

Attending an old university means you are more likely to be exposed to cutting edge research, but newer universities are often more agile in responding to the changing employment market.

F1 allocations are interesting, as not only are they University blind but also take no account of "merit". So we know of a talented young doctor who was in the top 10% of her cohort at Oxford who is now working in a rural part of NI, rather than in a London teaching hospital which is what she wanted. (And on a less advantageous contract.) She is not the only one this year who is being asked to do a demanding job far from friends and family. Throw in the bottleneck for specialist training and the young medics face being moved from pillar to post until they are well into their 30s.

I guess it is a matter of belief. Do you believe that someone who shines at medical school makes a better doctor than someone who just scrapes through. Who would you rather be treated by?

The unintended consequence seems to be that hard working, dedicated junior doctors don't feel valued by the NHS. Given they are a monopolistic employer the choice, if you feel undervalued, is to find another career or to move to another country. Here, and elsewhere, "equality" has a cost.

I understood that medical degrees were pass/fail, rather than being classified in the way other degrees are. So she might have known that her exam results were top 10% of her cohort, but she won’t have graduated with any ‘better’ a degree and that won’t be known to anyone else?

guess it is a matter of belief. Do you believe that someone who shines at medical school makes a better doctor than someone who just scrapes through. Who would you rather be treated by?

Well... if you live in rural NI or a less desirable part of the country you might indeed want to have a chance of being treated by someone who shone at medical school and might be a better doctor.
'f1 allocations' are a complete mystery to those who aren't in the nhs or have medic kids, I think. What I've gleaned is that it was an odd system in the past and is an odd system now.

The health system exists primarily for the benefit of patients not doctors... however the current system isn't serving the former well if it's arbitrarily pissing off the latter.

@mids2019 I believe the best uni dc cancer timid the best choice. It’s not universal that employers recruit blind.

My DD attended RG and all lecturers were engaged in research, from which she benefitted. There were stark differences between her course and those at lower tariff unis. Their courses were altered to fit their intake. Simply not the same and no teaching was going to change that.

On another thread I’m being told to check my privilege because I strongly believe dc with A stars (should not be at unis in the bottom 10% in decent league tables. This seems counter to aiding social mobility to me. I just get accused of not understanding others but if we care about this, don’t we need clear advice to young people on choices?

I understood that medical degrees were pass/fail, rather than being classified in the way other degrees are. So she might have known that her exam results were top 10% of her cohort, but she won’t have graduated with any ‘better’ a degree and that won’t be known to anyone else?

This is correct: in general, most medicine degrees are honours degrees without classifications, but typically the top 10% or so will graduate with distinction. The exception will be those that include other degrees within the programme, i.e. Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Nottingham and any with compulsory intercalation (Edinburgh, King's, Imperial, UCL), where the additional degree will be classified.

However, the way the allocation of foundation training posts worked before this year was that each student had an educational performance measure (EPM) based on their ranking within their cohort at their medical school (expressed as a decile for exam results up to the penultimate year of the programme) plus any additional credit-bearing markers such as publications, additional degrees, etc. This was combined with a score for the situational judgement test to give an overall ranking score. The highest-ranked applicants had a greater probability of being allocated their more preferred foundation schools.

This was removed this year, and the allocation was based first on applicant's preference and then on a random allocation. (Although this seems not to have worked properly, as some applicants did not get either of their first two preferences even though they were undersubscribed.)

There are strong arguments for changing from the previous system, not least that students who had the greatest need for support after graduating were the ones most likely to end up in the foundation schools least able to provide it. It's difficult to define the "best" medical graduates, as these aren't necessarily the ones with the best exam results (because exams are an inherently flawed form of assessment), but it is important to make sure the best doctors don't all end up working in a small number of prestigious centres, for reasons @ErrolTheDragon has spelled out. However, the expectation that newly-qualified doctors will just go where they're sent and do what they're told is likely to accelerate the rate at which they emigrate. It isn't a privilege to be a doctor, nor is it a "vocation" (I hate that word): it's a means of making a living that has been worked hard for and the monopoly employer should show some recognition for doctors' need to have some idea of where & how they can plan their future.

On another thread I’m being told to check my privilege because I strongly believe dc with A stars (should not be at unis in the bottom 10% in decent league tables.

I told you to check your privilege because you seen unable to comprehend that a straight A student may have significant MH or other disabilities or other needs which mean they are not able to leave home and are therefore limited to their local ex-HE college uni.

What do you think is the best option:
a) move away to RG, have a breakdown and drop out with significantly poorer MH than you went with;
b) gaining a degree from your local uni where you had the support of friends and family, and are familiar with the MH services locally or
c) claiming UC?